Re: [AlwaysLearning] Guy style
Betsy Hill
**
Not sure why you mention 'guy-style'. Don't see the relevance, unless that
was meant as a dig. If so, I'm curious to hear your characterization of
guy-style...**
I thought I had a good idea what she meant. To me the style (that stands out a mile) in this more than 90% female forum is highly logical, highly competitive, makes a lot of references to outside authority, is often condescending and doesn't say much about the posters actual children (if there are any, I think I've heard from some condescending non-parents before). These characteristics seem to go along in tandem with a lack of respect for anecdotal experience. The know-it-all style of guy (a subset) gives theory a shining prominence over reality. I think this style that I've seen here (or on related lists and boards) from several guys is quite a bit like a "professorial style". One can almost picture the unlit pipe. <g>
In a forum with hundreds of members, you can't reasonably be 50% of the conversation. Posting with that kind of frequency in the beginning really attracts attention. Attention with perhaps a pinch of aggravation thrown in, though other listmembers are doubtless more saintly than I am.
Betsy
Not sure why you mention 'guy-style'. Don't see the relevance, unless that
was meant as a dig. If so, I'm curious to hear your characterization of
guy-style...**
I thought I had a good idea what she meant. To me the style (that stands out a mile) in this more than 90% female forum is highly logical, highly competitive, makes a lot of references to outside authority, is often condescending and doesn't say much about the posters actual children (if there are any, I think I've heard from some condescending non-parents before). These characteristics seem to go along in tandem with a lack of respect for anecdotal experience. The know-it-all style of guy (a subset) gives theory a shining prominence over reality. I think this style that I've seen here (or on related lists and boards) from several guys is quite a bit like a "professorial style". One can almost picture the unlit pipe. <g>
In a forum with hundreds of members, you can't reasonably be 50% of the conversation. Posting with that kind of frequency in the beginning really attracts attention. Attention with perhaps a pinch of aggravation thrown in, though other listmembers are doubtless more saintly than I am.
Betsy
Ken Cooper
> To me the style (that stands out a mile) in this more than 90% femaleI can understand that many of you have had experiences with men on and off
> forum is highly logical, highly competitive, makes a lot of references to
> outside authority, is often condescending and doesn't say much about the
> posters actual children (if there are any, I think I've heard from some
> condescending non-parents before).
this group that have given you some bias, but please don't peg me so
quickly. I am genuinely interested in what you all have to say. I may
occasionally show skepticism and I'm known for being a bit of a devil's
advocate, but really only to sharpen my own understanding of an issue.
Condescension is rarely my intent. And when it is, I generally feel lousy
the next day.
Radical unschooling is a particularly interesting and counterintuitive
subject for me. I need to address it with the same passion I see in others
on this list. I see I could do better with my tone, so any concrete
constructive feedback is welcome off list.
> In a forum with hundreds of members, you can't reasonably be 50% of theMy first day was rather verbose, sorry to all. I was learning a lot, felt I
> conversation. Posting with that kind of frequency in the beginning really
> attracts attention. Attention with perhaps a pinch of aggravation thrown
> in, though other listmembers are doubtless more saintly than I am.
should be responding to what others are saying, and forgot how many people I
might be affecting. Thanks for pointing this out.
Ken
Sandra Dodd
On May 16, 2006, at 2:56 AM, Ken Cooper wrote:
Men communicating with and among men have certain traditions and
expectations.
Mixed groups communications have other traditions and expectations.
This is NOT a particularly "girlie" conversation, except for the
aspect of emotion involving our children. But still, even though it
wasn't designed as a women's group, most primary unschooling parents
are moms (the dads rarely discover it first, though it does happen).
So the tone and expectations are those that women have of women's
interactions. That's also experience, and not anything that's
usually analyzed in any depth. It just is what it is.
Communicate the way you naturally do, but don't be surprised or
offended if people can tell you're male without you saying so.
Nearly half the people in the world are males. We're all used to it.
-=-Radical unschooling is a particularly interesting and
counterintuitive
subject for me.-=-
For all of us, at the beginning. It's not so much counterintuitive
as counter to the voices that say "must" and "if not, then..."
People have their intuition trained out of them in this culture, so
it's a wonder anything can be intuitive.
Sandra
> I can understand that many of you have had experiences with men onIt's experience, not bias. <g>
> and off
> this group that have given you some bias
Men communicating with and among men have certain traditions and
expectations.
Mixed groups communications have other traditions and expectations.
This is NOT a particularly "girlie" conversation, except for the
aspect of emotion involving our children. But still, even though it
wasn't designed as a women's group, most primary unschooling parents
are moms (the dads rarely discover it first, though it does happen).
So the tone and expectations are those that women have of women's
interactions. That's also experience, and not anything that's
usually analyzed in any depth. It just is what it is.
Communicate the way you naturally do, but don't be surprised or
offended if people can tell you're male without you saying so.
Nearly half the people in the world are males. We're all used to it.
-=-Radical unschooling is a particularly interesting and
counterintuitive
subject for me.-=-
For all of us, at the beginning. It's not so much counterintuitive
as counter to the voices that say "must" and "if not, then..."
People have their intuition trained out of them in this culture, so
it's a wonder anything can be intuitive.
Sandra
Betsy Hill
**
I can understand that many of you have had experiences with men on and off
this group that have given you some bias, but please don't peg me so
quickly. I am genuinely interested in what you all have to say. I may
occasionally show skepticism and I'm known for being a bit of a devil's
advocate...**
To me, the devil's advocate approach reads like a detached attempt to poke the group's hot buttons for personal entertainment. (Similar to what trolls do, and somewhat disruptive as most of us are here to become better parents, not just to pass the time.)
I mentioned in my last post on this thread that I think a common denominator in the "guy style" of many new male posters is "competitiveness". When someone comes here, and all they do is (metaphorically) stand at the net and volley the tennis ball back defensively, it looks like they are here to "win" rather than to learn. People of any gender who come here believing that they are "right" and sounding very invested in continuing to be right and perhaps hoping to *prove* that unschooling is wrong and ridiculous fairly often behave this way. I'm guessing (now) that this isn't your intention, but somehow when you made your debut here you did resemble at least partially the argumentative-dismissive profile. (If you want to see what I see, try going up thread and rereading your first 5 or 6 posts. Now that you've read here awhile, can you see how your posts have a different flavor than the average post? And if you WERE feeling defensive or flustered or irked when the thread came around the first time, I think you'll find a lot of value in rereading the responses to your questions. Or in searching the archives for related previous answers. Stuff that didn't make sense before is likely to make sense now.)
**
At some point, you see the moderator refer backhandedly to another woman who
has left the group in a storm as acting typically of those with vaginas.**
I think you are mischaracterizing what was said. (Another reason for a reread. I recall personally using the words "comptetive", "rational" and probably "condescending", with some generalizing wiggle words and handwaving attributing those words to "some" guys in general, but not saying every bit was an exact fit for you. Sandra used the phrase "guy style". I don't recall explicit mentions of genitalia.
These are my recollections and opinions, not necessarily that of any other reader. I'm happy to drop it now, as it is kind of off topic. (I don't need to win, but wanted to take a shot at having you hear me.)
Betsy
I can understand that many of you have had experiences with men on and off
this group that have given you some bias, but please don't peg me so
quickly. I am genuinely interested in what you all have to say. I may
occasionally show skepticism and I'm known for being a bit of a devil's
advocate...**
To me, the devil's advocate approach reads like a detached attempt to poke the group's hot buttons for personal entertainment. (Similar to what trolls do, and somewhat disruptive as most of us are here to become better parents, not just to pass the time.)
I mentioned in my last post on this thread that I think a common denominator in the "guy style" of many new male posters is "competitiveness". When someone comes here, and all they do is (metaphorically) stand at the net and volley the tennis ball back defensively, it looks like they are here to "win" rather than to learn. People of any gender who come here believing that they are "right" and sounding very invested in continuing to be right and perhaps hoping to *prove* that unschooling is wrong and ridiculous fairly often behave this way. I'm guessing (now) that this isn't your intention, but somehow when you made your debut here you did resemble at least partially the argumentative-dismissive profile. (If you want to see what I see, try going up thread and rereading your first 5 or 6 posts. Now that you've read here awhile, can you see how your posts have a different flavor than the average post? And if you WERE feeling defensive or flustered or irked when the thread came around the first time, I think you'll find a lot of value in rereading the responses to your questions. Or in searching the archives for related previous answers. Stuff that didn't make sense before is likely to make sense now.)
**
At some point, you see the moderator refer backhandedly to another woman who
has left the group in a storm as acting typically of those with vaginas.**
I think you are mischaracterizing what was said. (Another reason for a reread. I recall personally using the words "comptetive", "rational" and probably "condescending", with some generalizing wiggle words and handwaving attributing those words to "some" guys in general, but not saying every bit was an exact fit for you. Sandra used the phrase "guy style". I don't recall explicit mentions of genitalia.
These are my recollections and opinions, not necessarily that of any other reader. I'm happy to drop it now, as it is kind of off topic. (I don't need to win, but wanted to take a shot at having you hear me.)
Betsy
Ken Cooper
> To me, the devil's advocate approach reads like a detached attempt to pokeI'm not trying to be a troll. I'm trying to develop a deep conviction in
> the group's hot buttons for personal entertainment. (Similar to what
> trolls do, and somewhat disruptive as most of us are here to become better
> parents, not just to pass the time.)
unschooling (or reject it if I can't). I don't do this for personal
entertainment.
> I think you are mischaracterizing what was said.That was referring to a previous discussion several months back, about a
> ...
> I don't recall explicit mentions of genitalia.
different male poster.